↓ Skip to main content

The infant disorganised attachment classification: “Patterning within the disturbance of coherence”

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The infant disorganised attachment classification: “Patterning within the disturbance of coherence”
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Reijman, Sarah Foster, Robbie Duschinsky

Abstract

Since its introduction by Main and Solomon in 1990, the infant disorganised attachment classification has functioned as a predictor of mental health in developmental psychology research. It has also been used by practitioners as an indicator of inadequate parenting and developmental risk, at times with greater confidence than research would support. Although attachment disorganisation takes many forms, it is generally understood to reflect a child's experience of being repeatedly alarmed by their parent's behaviour. In this paper we analyse how the infant disorganised attachment classification has been stabilised and interpreted, reporting results from archival study, ethnographic observations at four training institutes for coding disorganised attachment, interviews with researchers, certified coders and clinicians, and focus groups with child welfare practitioners. Our analysis points to the role of power/knowledge disjunctures in hindering communication between key groups: Main and Solomon and their readers; the oral culture of coders and the written culture of published papers; the research community and practitioners. We highlight how understandings of disorganised attachment have been magnetised by a simplified image of a child fearful of his or her own parent.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 49%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 15 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,575,297
of 15,555,703 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#2,915
of 9,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,005
of 366,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#92
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,555,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.